The Press-Dispatch
Issue link: https://www.ifoldsflip.com/i/340091
OpiniOn C-2 Wednesday, July 2, 2014 The Press-Dispatch Points to ponder—by Rev. Ford Bond Observations by Thomas Sowell Think Big by Ben Carson A lame duck country Playing a name game Continued on page 3 Temptation of wishful thinking on Iran A woman's perspective—by Mona Charen Assessing the 'Great Society' An estimated 50,000 Iranian ex- iles and supporters from Europe and North America are here to remind the world that no cooperation with the brutal, expansionist re- gime in Tehran can possibly advance Western interests. This annual gathering of MeK (People's Mujahe- din of Iran), an Iranian re- sistance group, was already scheduled. But it might have been called just to rebut Sec- retary of State John Kerry's comments about possible cooperation between the U.S. and Iran in Iraq. "I think we need to go step by step," Kerry mused, "and see what, in fact, might be a reality, but I wouldn't rule out any- thing that would be constructive to providing real stability, a respect for the constitution, a respect for the elec- tion process, and a respect for the abil- ity of the Iraqi people to form a govern- ment that represents all of the inter- ests of Iraq, not one sectarian group over another. It has to be inclusive, and that has been one of the great prob- lems of the last few years." The administration has walked back a bit from that flabbergasting com- ment, but the confusion it reflects is typical. Does the Obama administration un- derstand what it's dealing with in Iran? The Weekly Standard reports that President Barack Obama's "spiritual adviser," Pastor Joel Hunter, recently traveled to Iran to discuss "religious tolerance" with the speaker of Iran's parliament, officials of Iran's Acade- my of Sciences, Christian and Jewish leaders, and grand ayatollahs in Qom. Hunter will brief Obama. Who can object to talks, right? Dia- logue promotes peace, doesn't it? Only if your partner has a semblance of in- tegrity. Dialogue with brutal, vicious revolutionaries, who lie as a matter of policy, signals only an eagerness to deceive oneself, which is what is arguably hap- pening now in Geneva, Switzerland. The mullahs are practiced in deception. While Obama was ignor- ing Iraq, Tehran encour- aged Nouri al-Maliki to oppress all opposition. The Sunnis, who had made common cause with the U.S. against al- Qaida, were forced out of government, arrest- ed and sometimes mur- dered—all while Washington issued bland endorsements of Maliki's inclu- sive reign. Among Maliki's non-Sunni targets is a group of 3,000 Iranian ex-patriots, members of MeK, currently housed in a facility called (the irony was uninten- tional) Camp Liberty. MeK is the best- organized and largest domestic oppo- sition to Iran's regime. Maliki's units have repeatedly entered the camp, and they have assassinated 52 people after handcuffing them. The fate of the re- mainder remains very much in doubt. The whole world's got trouble. Why should this group compel particu- lar concern? Because, as a letter to Obama signed by 30 prominent Amer- icans details, these opponents of Iran's regime voluntarily disarmed and co- operated with U.S. forces starting in 2003. " ... The MeK worked hard to help protect the lives of our service members ... providing invaluable infor- mation about not only Iran's concealed nuclear enrichment activities, but also threats inside Iraq." Each MeK mem- ber was vetted by U.S. Forces and promised security. The letter continues: "Over the last three years, while your administra- tion was committed to keeping the residents secure ... a total of 135 have been murdered or died while being de- nied access to medical treatment ... In the pocket of each deceased resident was a Protected Person Status iden- tity card." The hand of the mullahs can be seen in a worldwide disinformation cam- paign to discredit the MeK. Though they stand for women's rights (one of the leaders is a woman), democ- racy, religious pluralism, free mar- kets, freedom of expression, abolition of the death penalty, and separation of church and state, they have been tarred as "terrorists" and a cult. In a carefully researched analysis of these old smears (the U.S. State Department listed MeK as a terror- ist group until 2012), Lincoln Bloom- field writes, "A large part of what cre- dentialed authorities in the U.S. have been saying about the MeK's past ... is either demonstrably untrue, factu- ally unsupportable or misleading to the point of intellectual dishonesty." Human Rights Watch, Bloomfield ar- gues, issued a report on MeK that re- lied on several sources who were se- cretly in the pay of Iran's Ministry of Intelligence and Security. HRW's con- clusions were, in turn, relied upon by the R AND Corporation and State De- partment. It's one deception among thou- sands — starting with 20 years of de- nials that Iran is working on nuclear weapons. Let's ask again, as tens of thousands of Iranian exiles gather in Paris to plea for regime change: Does the Obama administration know what they're dealing with? Mona Charen is a Senior Fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Institute. Jesus Was Not a Bible Believer? I hesitated writing on this topic because of the absur- dity of the claim, but as I scrolled through a news site recently, I ran across a com- mentary written by Frank Schaffer, a former conserva- tive fundamentalist who now considers himself an atheis- tic believer. But due to his status of be- ing a former conservative Christian, his blathers gain traction in the media, which enunciates all things anti- Christian at every chance. Schaffer is hard to de- scribe; he is like trying to nail Jell-O to a tree; he's a moving target; a religious shock jock [he claims Ger- man theologian and martyr Dietrich Bonheoffer was gay]. A legitimate question is, "Why bother with one who holds such convolut- ed views? " My response is that there are legions of peo- ple who think just like him and interject this babble in- to other people's lives, and one needs to know how to re- spond to such dribble. His article "Jesus Was Not a 'Bible Believer': Why He Would Have Disliked Most Modern Day Religion" is an insight into a mind that has wandered far from Christian- ity. He writes, "A leper came to Jesus and said, 'Lord, if you choose, you can make me clean.' If Je- sus had been a good religious Jew, he would have said, 'Be healed,' and just walk away. Instead, he stretched out his hand and touched the leper, saying, 'I do choose. Be made clean,' even though he was break- ing the specific rules of Le- viticus." He continues, "Jesus cer- tainly was not a 'Bible be- liever,' as we use that term in the post Billy Graham era of American fundamen- talist religiosity that's used as a trade-marked product to sell religion. Jesus didn't take the Jewish scriptures at face value. In fundamental- ist terms, Jesus was a rule- breaking relativist who wasn't even 'saved,' accord- ing to evangelical standards. Evangelicals insist that you have to believe very specif- ic interpretations of the Bi- ble to be saved. Jesus didn't. He undercut the scriptures." Here is where we need to stop Schaffer in his tracks. Jesus made it clear that He came not to overturn the Law of Moses, but fulfil it. Furthermore, He said not one dotting of the I or cross- ing of the T will go unfilled. The opposition Jesus was up against was the oral tra- ditions that had developed during and after the Baby- lonian Captivity. These or- dinances were held in the same regard as the scrip- tures. Jesus never "undercut the scriptures." He rebuked the Pharisees and scribes for their rigid application which placed hardships up- on the people. Jesus referred to them as "blind guides, hypocrites, fools, children of the devil." One may think all Schaf- fer is doing is pointing out the rigidness of some Chris- tian groups. Think so? His next paragraph lays to rest that interpretation. He writes, "The stories about Jesus that survived the big- ots, opportun- ists, and delu- sional fanatics who wrote the New Testament contain power- ful and enlight- ened truths that would someday prove the undo- ing of the Church built in his name. Like a futurist vindicated by events as yet undreamed, Jesus' message of love was far more powerful than the magical thinking of the writ- ers of the book he's trapped in." Schaffer considers the au- thors of the New Testament delusional fanatics and big- ots [and maybe Jesus is a myth]. Taking time to read his column, he accepts the theory that the words of Je- sus in the gospels are to be taken alone, and the writ- ings of his disciples are to be dismissed. He states, "Jesus believed in God rather than in a book about God." This is an interesting statement. Schaffer is dis- missing the claims of divin- ity by Jesus and reiterated by his disciples. What is his point, and my point in writing? Schaffer wants humanity to throw off all connection to gender, family, culture, and religion. We are to embrace one an- other, hold hands, and sing "Kum-bay-ya." The media elite with the help of Christians such as Schaffer are rewriting the message of Jesus from sal- vation for the soul, to so- cial justice. The message we hear from the Christian progressives is Jesus sought to teach "if we love one an- other, things will work out." This does not jive with 1 Timothy 1:15 where Paul writes, "This is a faithful saying and worthy of all ac- ceptance, that Christ Je- sus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief." Think about it. (Oh, I forgot; Schaffer considers Paul one of those Biblical bigots and delusional fanat- ics. How sad!) The audac- ity of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in can- celing the trademark of the Washing- ton Redskins is frightening. When the government is in charge of decid- ing what is offensive and what is not, and has the power to punish the "of- fenders," we move further away from a free society and closer to a tyranni- cal nanny state. We are not talking about a politi- cal issue that should have Democrats and Republicans coming down on dif- ferent sides, but rather the fundamen- tal freedom to express oneself, which is a part of the fabric of America. In the case of Dan Snyder, who owns the Redskins, he is being demonized for standing up for basic American prin- ciples. The team bore the same name when he purchased it in good faith. There was no indication at the time that subsequent demands for a name change would emerge, costing him millions of dollars in related expens- es, not to mention lawsuits he might encounter by other businesses that could be injured by such a move. There is no indication that many in the Native American community are upset after decades of the team's prominent and proud display of its mascot and name. This appears to be yet another case of purposefully induced hypersensitivity, providing yet another opportunity for unneces- sary heavy-handed government tac- tics to infringe upon the peaceful ex- istence of Americans. I have had the pleasure of meet- ing Snyder, who is far from the de- monic characterization seen in the gullible press, which allows itself to be manipulated by those wishing to bring about fundamental change in America. I do not doubt for one min- ute that the Redskins organization would change the name tomorrow if it thought it was truly offensive to most Native Americans. Also, the majority of American citizens are still decent people who would not only demand a name change, but would vote with their feet and purses in a way that would send a loud and convincing message - - if they thought the name was offensive. It appears that many have forgot- ten the power of free-market eco- nomic forces and instead have placed their trust in flawed government forc- es. Historically, individual freedoms vanish as government interventions increase. Traditionally, sports teams choose mascots and names that bring them pride, rather than shame. There are numerous sports teams throughout the nation with colorful names and symbols, and they are not out to of- fend anyone. In a large, diverse soci- ety, it is likely that almost anything is offensive to someone. I suspect there are those who are offended by the fact that the Duke University bas- ketball team is called the Blue Devils. Some would ridiculously opine that this nomenclature pays homage to the forces of evil. Should we cater to such foolishness, or should we grow up and focus on real issues, such as unacceptable rates of unemployment, terrorism, energy development, edu- cation, poverty, a stagnant economy, massive corruption, illegal immigra- tion, growing national debt and many other things of greater importance? We, the American people, must cease being distracted by peripher- al issues and demand that our gov- By Ed Feulner One of the lessons I learned in my first man- agement course is you can't improve something unless you can measure it. Let's apply that to government. As ambitious govern- ment programs go, it's hard to top the "Great Society," which recently marked its 50th anniversary. President Lyndon Johnson, after all, vowed "to give every citizen an escape from the crush- ing weight of poverty." That's a tall order. Five decades, nearly $22 trillion and roughly 80 welfare pro- grams later, it's fair to ask how we're doing. The short answer? Not well. Material poverty has de- clined, to be sure. Census Bureau data show that the average household classi- fied as "poor" not only re- ports having enough food, but also many amenities, including air-conditioning, cable T V, Internet access and personal computers. This is not to argue that poor households experi- ence no hardships — far from it. "The average poor person is far from affluent," write Robert Rector and Ra- chel Sheffield of the Heri- tage Foundation, "but his lifestyle is far from the im- ages of stark deprivation purveyed equally by advo- cacy groups and the me- dia." In other important ways, though, the War on Pover- ty is an abject failure. As social critic Irving Kristol has observed, "the welfare state came gradually to be seen less as a helping hand to those in need, a 'safety net,' and more as a commu- nal exercise in compassion toward an ever-expanding portion of the population." It's easy to see why it was "ever-expanding": The War on Poverty cre- ated negative incentives. Instead of promoting the growth of healthy families, the welfare system discour- aged them. A single moth- er could receive larger pay- ments from Uncle Sam by remaining single than by marrying the father of her child. Over time, many father- less children entered the world. The welfare checks showed up month after month, regardless of how their parents spent their days. As these boys and girls grew up without fa- thers around, they came to regard such households as natural. The social safety net, designed to be a tem- porary help to the people in need, instead kept them trapped in government de- pendency. This situation continued for three, even four genera- tions until 1996 when a Re- publican Congress passed historic welfare reform legislation (over President Clinton's veto — twice) that began turning things around. It transformed the Aid to Families with Depen- dent Children program in- to one known as Temporary Assistance for Needy Fami- lies. The program required recipients to perform at least 20 hours per week of work or job preparation ac- tivities in exchange for the cash benefit. The results? Overnight, welfare agencies became job placement offices, and people who had been de- pendent on government be- gan seeking employment. Continued on page 3 Continued on page 3 Pundits are pointing to President Barack Obama's recent decline in public opinion polls, and saying that he may now become another "lame duck" president, unable to accomplish much during his final term in office. That has happened to other presidents. But it is extremely unlikely to happen to this president. There are reasons why oth- er presidents have become impotent dur- ing their last years in office. But those rea- sons do not apply to Barack Obama. The Constitution of the United States does not give presidents the power to car- ry out major policy changes without the cooperation of other branches of govern- ment. Once the country becomes disen- chanted with a president during his sec- ond term, Congress has little incentive to cooperate with him - - and, once Congress becomes uncoopera- tive, there is little that a president can do on his own. That is, if he respects the Constitution. President Obama has demonstrated, time and again, that he has no respect for the Constitution's limitations on his pow- er. Despite his oath of office, to see that the laws are faithfully executed, Barack Obama has unilaterally changed welfare reform laws, by eliminating the work re- quirement passed by Congress during the Clinton administration. He has repeatedly and unilaterally changed or waived provisions of the Obam-